TRANSPORTATION CASES
U.S. 7th Circuit, May 19, 2008
Aux Sable Liquid Products v. Murphy, No. 07-1402
In an appeal involving the scope of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) preemption after defendant limited access to Interstate 57 on its local road to vehicles weighing less than 14 tons, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) section 31114 of the STAA prohibits states from denying commercial vehicles "reasonable access" to and from the interstate while allowing state and local government to use their police powers over state highways and local roads so long as they do not impede "reasonable access" for commercial vehicles; and 2) although the STAA does not prohibit denying any form of access to and from the interstate, preemption occurs when reasonable access is denied.
Read more...
U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 20, 2008
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Surface Transp. Bd., No. 06-1372
Petitions for review of recent rulemaking, wherein the Surface Transportation Board changed aspects of its rail rate-setting methodology, are denied where: 1) an argument that language in 49 U.S.C. section 10707 limits the Board's ability to eliminate all movement-specific adjustments was forfeited; 2) the Board's rejection of other proposals and its own balancing of costs and benefits fell within the expertise of the agency; 3) a change to the method of determining a complaining shipper's maximum reasonable rate furthered the Board's goals under the Guidelines and applicable law; 4) a change to the method of forecasting the hypothetical Stand-Alone-Railroad's (SARR) future operating expenses is upheld; 5) the method of allocating to the SARR the revenue from shippers that use both the SARR and other off-SARR parts of the railroad is not arbitrary; and 6) the Board did not impermissibly apply the proposed rulemaking retroactively.
Read more...
U.S. 11th Circuit, May 21, 2008
US v. Mendez, No. 07-13443
A conviction for unlawful production of a state commercial driver's license (CDL) is affirmed where defendant's intent in fraudulently obtaining the CDL was clearly to illegally operate a commercial vehicle, which would sufficiently affect interstate commerce. However, defendant's conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States is reversed where the United States was not the target of defendant's crime.
Read more...
